It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bowman Now Calls For Impeachment: Asks Military To Refuse Orders To Attack IRAN

page: 7
24
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   

that's not what you said earlier. earlier you said that people who didn't agree with the war were traitors, pure and simple (your words)


Actually what I said was that calling for troops to disobey orders is treason.....

If you want to continue to spout the liberal mantra, fine, but do try and get what I am saying correct. If I am not clear, please do not jump to conclusions, ask and I will clarify


Agreed! congress signed the war on terror before countries were specified.. many congressman complain openly about knowing what the plan is


Congress also signed the specific use of force against Iraq

see here


"Iraq Resolution" and "Iraq War Resolution" are popular names for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] a law passed by the United States Congress in October 2002, authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War.

* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
* Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
* Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
* Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
* Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."
* Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
* The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
* Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

The Resolution required President Bush's diplomatic efforts at the UN Security Council to "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions." It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush. Introduced as H.J.Res. 114 (Public Law 107–243), it passed the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, and the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

War Powers act


This was all read on open floor in the House and Senate prior to the signing...

There was no possibility for confusion as there was no request for clarification which is fairly normal in such matters..

Semper




posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 


Actually I believe that there were no planes involved at all. They were holograms, and no people died they were abducted by aliens from the planet Zeta Beta3121 in an exchange approved by the NWO in order for them not to make us slaves! In fact no buildings where destroyed, they still there they just cloaked, that's why they can not start the reconstruction yet.

Damn aliens!



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


Applause...(can you hear it?)

Brilliant, you take some extremely far out ideas, wrap it up so they sound even more ridiculous, and then direct it at me because I asked what you believe and why (the why of course what I was looking for which you failed to provide, but we'll save that 'till later). Boy, you must be proud.

I'll tell you what, why don't you look at some of the other evidence that has been going around and educate yourself a bit, and see that even people like Alan Greenspan come out and say it, and then tell yourself that the gov't would never lie to us or anyone else for that matter. Hey, they only want what's best for us, right? They would never do anything against the principles this nation was founded upon or hinder our rights in any way.

They would NEVER, EVER, EVER take away our right to Habeus Corpus because they care so much about us. Quit being such a close minded person who makes fun of other people's views after the research they've done into it just because they sound a bit different than yours.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by bigbert81]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Semper why is calling for troops to disobey orders treason? Is it due to a recent executive order where the first amendment does not apply?

Please explain, I am feeling a little stupid at the moment trying to digest your statement there.

PS Iraq is not Iran.....



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:11 PM
link   
is it just me or does any one else notice the "Iraq war resolution" with a bit of editing, could be used to to justify invading the USA, except we DO have WMD's?

Maybe I'm the only one that finds it Ironic, but due to more current knowledge, that resolution needs to be trimmed a bit. It does seem an accurate statement on the current situation here though.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shambles
Semper why is calling for troops to disobey orders treason? Is it due to a recent executive order where the first amendment does not apply?

Please explain, I am feeling a little stupid at the moment trying to digest your statement there.

PS Iraq is not Iran.....


I am aware that Iraq is not Iran, that was in response to a previous post...About the war being illegal....

Treason is:


Therefore the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

Treason

Specifically if the President uses his perfectly legal authority to declare war, any action taken by an American Citizen that "Gives Aid or Comfort to the Enemy, either within the United States or ELSEWHERE...

Calling for the Mutiny of Soldiers is giving aid to the enemy...

Of course as he is retired there is possibly a case for "Owing Allegiance" if it is found he owes no allegiance, then it is only Sedition


But Hey...

Man's gotta pick his sides..

Semper



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:16 PM
link   
They are reporting on the news channels that if the 1000 or so Blackwater mercenaries are removed at the request of the Iraqi government (something we have said we will not do... show them whose boss
) that we are stretched so thin that the absence of those 1000 will hamper our ability to do the job.... whatever that is.


So if we lose 1000 mercenaries (and that is what they are) that we are stretched so thin that their loss will hamper us militarily... tell me please what are we supposed to do if we attack Iran and they retaliate? Which they will!

So somebody tell me again how keeping them in the line of fire (and working to make it worse, if judged by the rhetoric of this administration against Iran) is supporting our troops?

How is this supposed to make us safer?

When the next president comes in and removes the troops (which he or she will) it will take us a generation to repair the damage this administration has done to not only our diplomatic standing in the world, but to our military as well.

We will be weaker because of this war.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Agreed! congress signed the war on terror before countries were specified.. many congressman complain openly about knowing what the plan is


Congress also signed the specific use of force against Iraq

see here


"Iraq Resolution" and "Iraq War Resolution" are popular names for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] a law passed by the United States Congress in October 2002, authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War.

* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
* Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
* Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
* Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
* Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."
* Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
* The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
* Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

The Resolution required President Bush's diplomatic efforts at the UN Security Council to "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions." It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush. Introduced as H.J.Res. 114 (Public Law 107–243), it passed the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, and the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

War Powers act


This was all read on open floor in the House and Senate prior to the signing...

There was no possibility for confusion

Semper

they where complying.. ask hans blix the weapons were not there. The un was doing its job until we kicked them out.... specifing the option for military action is not a declaration of war. gulf war 1 had a time limit as it was a military action not a congressionally declared war. any resolutions of military action prior to the declaration of war(on terror) are not magically connected to the declaration of war in 01. and now that we have blown to pieces a country with no wmd's. placed them in civil war(not covered under the war on terror] and now bush is planning to turn it back over to the un... many senators asked what the next step was.. and were left hanging. now bush mentions phase 2? is phase 2 anywhere in the declaration? i have yet to talk to anyone who knows what it is.. we can't even prove that it was the real Hussein that was hung. we never caught the look alikes.


no confusion?



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:19 PM
link   
We have not declared war and haven't done so since 1941. This is technically what they used to call a police action.

It isn't treason either. The man is expressing his opinion.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
He is a Traitor

Pure and simple

Semper


Im starting to think your right Semper....

I mean, going on past American attrocities, needless deaths etc etc... unless your 'for' indiscrimantly bombing innocent people then your obviously not a 'full blooded American'

People such as yourself seem to have a patriotic hardon, when ever bombs are dropped on other people, so long as its YOUR government doing the bombing.
It matters not who gets murderd or maimed, because u get to drive around in your SUV, on cheaper fuel, eating your greasy hamburgers and puffing up your arrogant chest, because, as you put it

any sane, reasonable person who doesnt believe in nuking another country must be a traitor.

By your own admission, to be american you must be a seriously sick individual.
cause peace loving americans, are traitors!

[edit on 17-9-2007 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by sy.gunson
 


But the US supplied weapons to the Taliban back in the 80's when they were heroic Moujahaddin "freedom fighters" fighting soviet occupation and not the oppressors of women we've seen ever since.

You realise that it was a mistake to invade Iraq and yet you still say that attacking Iran is the right thing to do??

The US hasn't even finished it's war in Iraq and you think that taking on it's aggressive neighbour that HAS a nuclear weapons programme and not just supposed WMD's is a good idea??

I'm speechless (after the above rant!)...



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Just for the record, the president or congress never declared war on Iraq, did they? Also, for the record, congress approved the use of force should it be justified, but didn't specifically state or authorize the president could invade Iraq, right? I just want to be clear on these things and think it out. Deep breaths and all that. History will be the judge, right? Andy



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Here is the problem with what this LT.Colonel is trying to do. First a system has been set up for the use of nuclear weapons. It is a very safe system and allot of people would need to agree to do it before the order would go out.
If the President was not right in his judgment then the Chiefs would never allow a strike to happen.
When a solider, Sailor or Airman is given the order to attack it is wrong for him to disobey that order because he don't know everything that is happening at that time or is about to happen.
He could be questioning the order while ten nuclear missiles are in the air headed for the U.S. or cities could already be hit, He don't know. We have a chain of command for that purpose.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Although I'd love nothing more than to see BUSH/CHENEY *both* impeached, it's not likely to happen, congress is full of spineless gimps who just follow along, and those two have every judge in the palm of their hand.

ISRAEL is behind it all, they simply cannot play well with others, do they send their own children off to fight...NO, they send OURS! We need our troops out of all the sticky situations Bush/Cheney lies have gotten them into.

I'm still waiting to see if the bet the stock market will crash on or before September 21st 2007 is going to happen, the Brits seem to think so pulling out millions, other countries dumping the dollar for Euros, meanwhile we sent a hefty sum of money to guess who?.......ISRAEL!

If this is allowed to continue, there's not going to be much of us left to stand up against anything, the time is now...TELL them NO!, impeach them both, bring our military back home to fight for OUR country, not ISRAEL's neighbors!

[edit on 17-9-2007 by TroyB]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 


Please accept my apologies as I got carried away.

You want to know what I believe. I believe that we live in a complicated world, there is a lot that we know, a lot we don't know, and a lot that we are not suppose to know but if we tie some dots here and there we get a pretty good idea of what going on.

I know for sure being in Iraq already that a lot of radical muslims are trying to kill the infidels, meaning all those that don't share their view on how the world should be. That's a fact.

I believe that 9/11 happen as it was recorded in history well there is some strong evidence supporting that 4 planes were involved and that they were piloted by muslims extremist on orders by OBL. I have heard many other conspiracies, but none of them come close with stronger evidence.

I also believe that there is people out there taking advantage of their position of power entrusted to them by the people to pursue their agendas, I don't have evidence to back up such a claim, but to me that's just human nature.

I believe that they are totalitarian regimes in this world that feed propaganda to their citizens in order to blind them into hating us. Our government might try to do the same but sooner or later they are exposed. ( Iraq and their WMD for example)

Its hard to weed out the truth that's for sure and trust me I try to keep an open mind, but been there and have it experience it myself, I'm sure of some things.

Please accept my apologies if I offended you in anyway or Digirati as well.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
We have not declared war and haven't done so since 1941. This is technically what they used to call a police action.

yeah.. war against "terror" is like a war against "pissed off people". all it does is piss off more people. hence more terrorists then when we started.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Of course Grover,

YOUR OPINION

More FACTS though for the record..

Stretched thin?

hmmmm

130,000 troops after this Christmas... 160,000 now for the sake of argument..


In 2005, the military had 1.38 million personnel on active duty,[48] along with several hundred thousand each in the Reserves and the National Guard for a total of 2.3 million troops.

WIKI

Now lets do the math shall we...

160,000 is what percent of 2.3 Million?

6.9% if my math is correct.. (Better check it I suck at math)

Either way, lets assume only 1 soldier in 3 is a fighter that gives us 713,333 more troops to do what we need....

That is also at the 2005 troop strength and we are slightly larger now..

So after we use the 700,000 we might be stretched a little thin..

Semper



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:34 PM
link   
A song sung in the pubs of England around the turn of the 20th century went:

"We don't want to fight but by Jingo if we do,
We've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money too..."

And it gave rise to the terms jingoist and jingoism... and was used by Kipling in one of his poems... as the line "my country right or wrong by jingo".

While it sounds noble and patriotic... it really is just plain ignorant and stupid.

Unfortunately there is a lot of jingoism in the United States, and while I like and respect Semper... for the most part he is a jingoist.

The simple truth is we invaded a country unprovoked. We are not welcome there and no matter how many decent men and women die in this war, there is no winning because for the most part the population does not want us there.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:36 PM
link   
I'll pass the good news on th Ambassador Crocker, who in his report to congress with General Petreus used the words stretched too thin.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by grover]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Of course Grover,

YOUR OPINION

More FACTS though for the record..

Stretched thin?

hmmmm

130,000 troops after this Christmas... 160,000 now for the sake of argument..


In 2005, the military had 1.38 million personnel on active duty,[48] along with several hundred thousand each in the Reserves and the National Guard for a total of 2.3 million troops.

WIKI

Now lets do the math shall we...

160,000 is what percent of 2.3 Million?

6.9% if my math is correct.. (Better check it I suck at math)

Either way, lets assume only 1 soldier in 3 is a fighter that gives us 713,333 more troops to do what we need....

That is also at the 2005 troop strength and we are slightly larger now..

So after we use the 700,000 we might be stretched a little thin..

Semper


Ask the governor of Georgia that recently had half her state flooded and the Reserve only had a dozen trucks. she certainly thought their was insufficient... to say the least. she was even reprimanded by the white house for complaining! so when several counties got slammed by tornadoes she didn't even waste her breath asking the feds for help.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join